Sri Maruthi vs State By
2023 Latest Caselaw 1208 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                        CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                        BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.509 OF 2015
                   BETWEEN:

                      SRI MARUTHI
                      S/O KRISHNAIAH,
                      AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
                      R/AT DEVALAPURA VILLAGE,
                      KORA HOBLI,
                      TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101
                                                                 ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI. M.C.JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                      STATE BY
                      KORA POLICE,
                      TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101
Digitally signed                                                ...RESPONDENT
by HARSHITHA B
Location: High
Court of           (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
Karnataka
                          THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
                   SECTION 397(1) CR.P.C R/W SECTION 401 OF CODE OF
                   CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
                   DATED 11.03.2015 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT AT
                   TUMKUR AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2012 PASSED IN
                   C.C.NO.463/2010 BY THE III JMFC AT TUMKUR; B) GRANT
                   SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE
                               -2-
                                      CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015




FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

The revision petitioner has filed this revision petition

under section 397(1) of Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated

11.03.2015 passed by the Fast Track Court, Tumkur in

Crl.A.No.80/2012 and judgment dated 15.03.2012 passed

by II Additional Civil Judge at Tumkur in CC No.463/2010.

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranks before

the trial court.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution is that:

On 14.01.2010, near the house of Imam Sab, near

Chikkathotlukere Ataviswamy Mutt road, the accused

being the driver of tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-06-A-5329-

5330 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as

to endanger human life and dashed against Gowramma,

who was proceeding on the left side of the road, as a

CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015

result, a wheel of tractor ran over her and caused death of

Gowramma. Further it is alleged that the accused was not

having any valid license at the relevant point of time and

the vehicle was also not insured. Thus, accused has

committed offences punishable under Sections 181 and

196 of IMV Act and Section 279 and 304A IPC.

4. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was

taken against the accused for the alleged commission of

offences and case was registered in CC No.463/2010. In

pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the trial

court and enlarged on bail. Substance of plea was

recorded by the Magistrate and accused has pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution in all 6

witnesses are examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 and 11 documents

are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. On closure of prosecution

side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C

recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence

appearing against him. But he has not chosen to lead any

CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015

defence evidence on his behalf. But he has stated that

false case is foisted against him. On hearing arguments,

the trial court has convicted the accused for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 279,

304A of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of MV Act. Being

aggrieved by the impugned Judgment passed by the II

Additional Civil Judge at Tumkur, the accused has

preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court, Tumkur

in Crl.A.No.80/2012 and the same came to be dismissed

on 11.03.2015. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

impugned judgments passed by courts below, petitioner

has filed this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has submitted his argument that the impugned

Judgments passed by the Courts below are illegal,

erroneous and contrary to criminal jurisprudence. Both the

Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on

record in a proper and perspective manner. The Courts

below have mechanically held the petitioner as guilty of

CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015

alleged offences by placing reliance of certain Judgments

of foreign Courts, which are not applicable to the case on

hand. On all these grounds, sought for allow revision

petition.

7. Alternatively, learned counsel for the accused

has submitted that if this Court has confirmed the

Judgments passed by the trial court and as well as

appellate Court. This Court may modify the sentence by

imposing fine of Rs.20,000/. Further he has submitted

that, at the time of commission of offence, the age of the

accused was 19 years and he is the only earning member

in the family. Considering the nature of gravity of offence,

he sought for modification of sentence passed by the trial

court.

8. As against this, learned HCGP

Sri. Nageshwarappa, submitted his argument that the

impugned Judgments passed by the trial Court, which is

confirmed by appellate Court are in accordance with law.

Both the courts have properly appreciated the evidence on

CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015

record in a proper and perspective manner, that there are

no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments. On

these grounds, sought for dismissal of revision petition.

9. To prove the case of prosecution, in all 6

witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked 11

documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. It is alleged by the

prosecution that the accused was not having valid driving

license at the relevant point of time. To substantiate this,

PW6-Kalleshapa-Circle Inspector, Kudligi, has clearly

deposed in his evidence that he has issued notice to the

owner of tractor under Section 133 of MV Act. On the

same day, he has obtained reply from the owner of this

vehicle. He has issued notice as per Ex.P.9 and he has

obtained reply from the owner of vehicle Ex.P.10 and the

owner of the vehicle produced accused before him.

Thereafter, he has arrested the accused and released him

on bail. The accused has not challenged the evidence of

P.W.6. Even the accused has not placed driving licence to

show that he was having valid licence to drive the

CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015

offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. It is alleged

by the prosecution that the offending vehicle was not

insured at the relevant point of time. Thus, the accused

has committed offence punishable under Section 196 of

MV Act. The accused has not disputed this aspect and he

has not produced policy of insurance to show that

offending vehicle was insured at the relevant point of time.

Since the accused was not having valid driving licence and

also policy of Insurance at the relevant point of time,

Investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against

the accused for commission of offences under Sections

181 and 196 of MV Act.

10. Learned counsel for the accused has not

submitted any argument in this regard. Hence, considering

the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the

considered opinion that both the Courts have properly

appreciated the evidence on record and the trial Court has

convicted the accused for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 181 and 196 of MV Act.

CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015

11. With regard to rash and negligent act on the

part of the accused is concerned, the prosecution has

examined the complainant CW.1 as P.W.3. He has clearly

deposed in his evidence that the deceased had gone to

temple and while they were returning around 1.00 p.m.,

near the house of Imam Sab, the tractor came at high

speed and dashed against Gowramma while they were

proceeding on the left side of road. When Gowramma fell

down, Tractor ran over her head and she was admitted to

the hospital. On the way, she succumbed to the injuries

and Doctor declared as brought dead. The inquest

panchanama conducted as per Ex.P.2. Postmortem report

Ex.P.3, IMV report Ex.P.4. Contents of panchanama have

not been disputed by the accused. Considering the

evidence of prosecution witnesses and material placed by

the prosecution, both the Courts have properly

appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned

judgments. Even on appreciation and re appreciation of

evidence on record, I do not find any legal infirmities to

CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015

interfere with the impugned judgments passed by the

Courts below.

12. With regard to the modification of sentence is

concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted his argument that at the time of accident, the

age of the accused was 19 years and he is not convicted in

any case prior to this accident. He is the only earning

person in their family and accused is not having sufficient

source of income. Considering the nature and gravity of

offence and age of the accused, sought for imposing fine

instead of sending the accused for imprisonment.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, age and occupation of the accused and keeping in

the mind the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of

Paul JeorgeVs NCIT Delhi 2008(2) SCC 768 and also

the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this court in

Crl.R.P.No.2272/2013 dated 13.07.2022 and

Crl.R.P.No.100176/2016 dated 30.11.2022 and

sentence imposed by trial court for the commission of

- 10 -

CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015

offences under Section 304A IPC, I am of the opinion that

instead of sending the accused to the custody for the

offence punishable under Section 304A IPC as per the

sentence passed by the trial court, it is just and proper to

modify the sentence by imposing fine which would meet

the needs of justice. Hence, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

The revision petition is allowed in part.

The judgment passed by trial court as well as

appellate court convicting the accused for the commission

of offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A IPC and

Section 181 and 196 of MV Act are confirmed.

The Judgment dated 15.03.2012 passed by

II Additional Civil Judge at Tumkur in CC No.463/2010 for

the offence punishable under section 304-A is modified as

under:

1) The petitioner/accused shall pay fine amount of Rs.30,000/- excluding the amount already deposited by the petitioner for the commission

- 11 -

CRL.RP No. 509 of 2015

of offence punishable under Section 304A IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

2) The fine amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to husband of the deceased Shivanna, resident of Gubbi, Chikkannanapalya, KallamballaHobli, SiraTaluk.

3) Remaining fine amount deposited by the accused shall be remitted to Government.

4) Registry is directed to send back trial court records along with the copy of this Judgment to the trial court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BH